|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
On Jul 10, 8:23*am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University As a matter of interest, do you have a cite for your claim that "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport ..."? Is it perhaps based on research at Lancaster University? Taxpayer funded research? Has it been peer reviewed? And how many people is "many people" in this context? And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"? Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to Usenet. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
"pensive hamster" wrote in message ... On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"? Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to Usenet. Voice of Reason? -- Bartc |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
"Judith" wrote in message
news On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more? uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more? When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch of the imagination? 99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all. Have I said? : you are a ****wit Most of his posts mention fish |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
On Jul 10, 3:58*pm, "BartC" wrote:
"pensive hamster" wrote in message ... On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"? Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to Usenet. Voice of Reason? But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason. Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason. Not that that makes much sense either. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
On 10/07/2012 16:25, pensive hamster wrote:
"BartC" wrote: "pensive hamster" wrote: On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR [wrote]: Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"? Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to Usenet. Voice of Reason? But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason. That should have been "it's". The version without the apostrophe is the possessive form. The contraction of "it is" (your sense above) requires an apostrophe. HTH. On the meaning of "VOR": If it were meant to convey that the writer is the Voice of Reason for just one cyclist, what you say ("it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason") would be true. If, however, as seems more likely, the gentleman concerned wishes to be seen as the Voice of Reason for cyclists in general, then it would correctly be "Cyclists' Voice of Reason". I wouldn't have mentioned any of this but for your flaming another poster's grammar. Unless yours is perfect, it's better not to. As an aside, some would say that you need to do some work on the use of apostrophes - and on reflection, you'd probably agree (I hope). Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason. Not that that makes much sense either. [I have just re-checked this post for typos and spelling before clicking "send". But we all know what tends to happen with these sub-threads.] |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
On 10/07/2012 15:21, pensive hamster wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University As a matter of interest, do you have a cite for your claim that "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport ..."? Yes thank you. Is it perhaps based on research at Lancaster University? Taxpayer funded research? Has it been peer reviewed? And how many people is "many people" in this context? GIYF And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"? Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to Usenet. Voice of Reason. -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
On 10/07/2012 16:25, pensive hamster wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:58 pm, "BartC" wrote: "pensive hamster" wrote in message ... On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"? Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to Usenet. Voice of Reason? But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason. Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason. Not that that makes much sense either. You are confusing me with someone who cares. -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
On Jul 10, 5:55*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote: On 10/07/2012 16:25, pensive hamster wrote: On Jul 10, 3:58 pm, "BartC" wrote: "pensive hamster" wrote in message .... On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"? Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to Usenet. Voice of Reason? But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason. Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason. Not that that makes much sense either. You are confusing me with someone who cares. Yay! 'Dave' deliberately makes yet another usenet enemy. The counsellor will be fascinated with this compulsion of yours. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
On 10/07/2012 18:29, M Wicks wrote:
Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: pensive hamster wrote: "BartC" wrote: "pensive hamster" wrote: Dave - Cyclists VOR Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"? Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to Usenet. Voice of Reason? But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason. Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason. Not that that makes much sense either. You are confusing me with someone who cares. Yay! 'Dave' deliberately makes yet another usenet enemy. The counsellor will be fascinated with this compulsion of yours. If you had read the exchange more carefully, you would have spotted the (rather obvious) fact that PH's post was a (mild) attack on "Dave". It follows that "Dave" could not make an enemy of someone who was already inimical to him. That's if "enemy" and its derivatives are the correct terms. Some will differ on that. Not, of course, that there's anything necessarily wrong with posting attacks, as I'm sure that both you and "Dave" would readily agree. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make trolling illegal?
"M Wicks" wrote in message ... The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls, who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists' and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'. Group B consists of the slightly more 'subtle' trolls, who pretend to be on the newsgroup for legitimate and respectable reasons, but in the end are just motivated by exactly the same anti-cycling sentiment as Group A. This group includes 'JNugent', 'NM' and of course the fake cyclist 'John Benn'. In many ways I find this group more frustrating, as they so persistently deny that they are present for anything but the most noble of reasons, despite making it obvious what they really think by always, no matter what, siding against the cyclist(s) in any given scenario. Anyway, there is further reading elsewhere on the ongoing and very specific problems that uk.rec.cycling has unfortunately experienced. We are trying to do something about it. Various legal remedies are on the table. But these rely on showing that some kind of 'harassment' of individual cyclists has occurred, which is tricky. And it is understood by all concerned that the 'harassment' accusations are just the method by which we are having to bring these trolls to justice, and that the real reason why they are being taken to court is to punish them for trolling and destroying a valuable and once pleasant newsgroup with their constant, vicious jibes and their worthless and incorrect opinions, all of which are carefully calculated to stoke the fire and cause maximum friction. It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way to do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and secondly because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone of 'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish them for trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best solution, at least for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling illegal. 'What about free speech?', I hear you ask. Well, it is generally accepted that sometimes we need to make exceptions to allowing free speech where it is in the public interest, e.g. with hate speech. So why not make another exception with trolling? How exactly is it in the public interest to allow the likes of 'Dave' and 'Judith' to systematically and irrevocably destroy valuable Internet resources? Isn't it much more in the public interest to stop them? Your favourite newsgroup or forum could be next if we do not stop these worthless individuals from spreading their hate. Trolling is on the increase as more and more idiots spend more and more time online, and so society needs to act robustly and quickly in order to show that it is not going to tolerate such extremely antisocial behaviour. I will be writing to my MP about this subject, using uk.rec.cycling as my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent' does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you will agree. Thanks, M Wicks Who is really interested in a obscure newsgroup that is dying? I know one man who might be. How goes it these days Simon? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Illegal Aliens Destroy Wildlife Refuge with Trash and Sheer Numbers of Illegal Entrants | [email protected] | General | 2 | September 8th 09 03:08 PM |
Trolling for primates | Bob Schwartz | Racing | 9 | January 8th 07 06:38 PM |
OT : Trolling and riding | GWood | Mountain Biking | 18 | August 1st 05 07:17 AM |
YEP TROLLING ........ | dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers | UK | 0 | November 29th 04 02:56 PM |
Trolling | davebee | UK | 7 | February 1st 04 07:38 PM |